I assume you're being ironic. It's never a fluke, at least not in recent history. The grand guignol 5-year version of dog-and-pony has been ongoing since before the turn of the millennium--though at least, back then, the establishment candidate was far more acceptable than today. I remember almost with tears Villepin's eloquent antiwar s…
I assume you're being ironic. It's never a fluke, at least not in recent history. The grand guignol 5-year version of dog-and-pony has been ongoing since before the turn of the millennium--though at least, back then, the establishment candidate was far more acceptable than today. I remember almost with tears Villepin's eloquent antiwar speech at the UN, France's last noble, independent moment on the world stage. Since then it's been plain ignominy, vassalage to the "worst of the worst" stoking the empty engines of a desperate empire while strutting ignobly to the jeers of the global south. They will fall hard, but are by now so small that the thud will not run so deep.
I don't know the details of what has been happening in French elections. I'm just talking about the two ballot system they use is largely a statistical fluke method. You have 8 candidates with various degrees of support, vote splitting everywhere, it is a statistical fluke who comes out on the top 2. Certainly not the 2 most popular candidates.
But, aside from the possible cheating, what I'm saying, in fact, is that the two-tier system is designed to favor the establishment candidate, by sapping votes from potential viable challengers in the first round. They let everyone and their dog who scrape together 50,000 signatures by mayors around the country (and every last backwater village in France has a useless mayor) run for president in the first round. And thus there are always a raft of ridiculous nobodies draining votes away from the most prominent challengers, while the establishment candidate, in the first round, never has to face any similar threat, as there is never anyone from roughly the same political camp attempting to do the same. This system, for example, has prevented the dissident left leader (and NATO and EU skeptic) Jean-Luc Melenchon from surviving the first round in the last several elections, always losing by just 1 or 2 points, which means that without the clown show of leftist losers siphoning off his votes, he would have been a shoo-in to make the second round, AND, if you took all those rinky-dink left-wing votes together with the former Socialist votes and threw them in to his pot, he would have easily won the second round and been president of France, since his proposed policies best represent the largest consensus of the French populace, at least over the past 10-odd years.
Yes, definitely an idiotic system. Pretense of being run-off voting or ranked choice but actually being a version of FPTP. Ranked Choice is the way to go, then you will get the candidate who has broad public support. We have similar problems with the FPTP system, easiest way to win is to finance a candidate to split votes from your main rival. They've even gone so far to get some schlock candidate with the same name as your rival. Just ridiculous.
I assume you're being ironic. It's never a fluke, at least not in recent history. The grand guignol 5-year version of dog-and-pony has been ongoing since before the turn of the millennium--though at least, back then, the establishment candidate was far more acceptable than today. I remember almost with tears Villepin's eloquent antiwar speech at the UN, France's last noble, independent moment on the world stage. Since then it's been plain ignominy, vassalage to the "worst of the worst" stoking the empty engines of a desperate empire while strutting ignobly to the jeers of the global south. They will fall hard, but are by now so small that the thud will not run so deep.
I don't know the details of what has been happening in French elections. I'm just talking about the two ballot system they use is largely a statistical fluke method. You have 8 candidates with various degrees of support, vote splitting everywhere, it is a statistical fluke who comes out on the top 2. Certainly not the 2 most popular candidates.
But, aside from the possible cheating, what I'm saying, in fact, is that the two-tier system is designed to favor the establishment candidate, by sapping votes from potential viable challengers in the first round. They let everyone and their dog who scrape together 50,000 signatures by mayors around the country (and every last backwater village in France has a useless mayor) run for president in the first round. And thus there are always a raft of ridiculous nobodies draining votes away from the most prominent challengers, while the establishment candidate, in the first round, never has to face any similar threat, as there is never anyone from roughly the same political camp attempting to do the same. This system, for example, has prevented the dissident left leader (and NATO and EU skeptic) Jean-Luc Melenchon from surviving the first round in the last several elections, always losing by just 1 or 2 points, which means that without the clown show of leftist losers siphoning off his votes, he would have been a shoo-in to make the second round, AND, if you took all those rinky-dink left-wing votes together with the former Socialist votes and threw them in to his pot, he would have easily won the second round and been president of France, since his proposed policies best represent the largest consensus of the French populace, at least over the past 10-odd years.
Yes, definitely an idiotic system. Pretense of being run-off voting or ranked choice but actually being a version of FPTP. Ranked Choice is the way to go, then you will get the candidate who has broad public support. We have similar problems with the FPTP system, easiest way to win is to finance a candidate to split votes from your main rival. They've even gone so far to get some schlock candidate with the same name as your rival. Just ridiculous.